←back to thread

560 points whatsupdog | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
asib ◴[] No.45167257[source]
> The demonstration turned violent when some protesters entered the Parliament complex, prompting police to resort to baton charges, tear gas shells and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, eyewitnesses said.

14 people dead from so-called "non-lethal" means. How do 14 people end up dead without the police coming with intent to do harm?

replies(5): >>45167399 #>>45167501 #>>45167564 #>>45167636 #>>45167860 #
bjackman ◴[] No.45167399[source]
Also note the phrasing. The content is "the police killed 14 people". But the form is "the situation turned violent as a result of the protester's actions".
replies(4): >>45167442 #>>45167588 #>>45167697 #>>45170650 #
ddtaylor ◴[] No.45167442[source]
"See what you made me do" is a common phrase in domestic abuse.
replies(2): >>45168088 #>>45174187 #
whamlastxmas ◴[] No.45168088[source]
It’s also irrefutable fact that pro-state or pro-cop agitators throughout history will pretend to be a demonstrator and throw a single brick to give the cops an excuse to break some skulls
replies(2): >>45168430 #>>45168625 #
martin-t ◴[] No.45168430[source]
In primitive societies where people are expected to resolve their own problems because everyone is roughly equal, violence is the principal currency, for better or worse.

But in "civilized" societies with multiple layers of power structures, you are not supposed to solve your own problem, you are supposed to show somebody in a position of power that you are the victim so they solve the problem for you. This means victimhood is the principal currency of power.

Don't believe me? Every governments which allows protests says they must always be peaceful and "violence doesn't belong in politics". Yet how many of those governments were created by violent armed revolt against a previous authoritarian government? How many by "peaceful" protests?

replies(4): >>45168869 #>>45169637 #>>45169639 #>>45175491 #
s1artibartfast ◴[] No.45175491[source]
interesting thesis, but I dont see why you focus on victimhood over every other form of leverage.

I dont think victimhood motivates those in power to take action. They care about votes. victimhood is but one of many factors driving votes.

Your conclusion supports the relevance of violence (it is always the final currency of power). your conclusion says nothing about victimhood.

How can you look around the country or world and think the victims have all the power?

replies(1): >>45191275 #
1. martin-t ◴[] No.45191275[source]
Say you're a parent or teacher and see kids fighting. Do you investigate who started it every single time or do you just get fed up and tell them to stop fighting or you'll punish both?

Incentivizing victims to behave in certain ways such as not fighting back makes it easier to determine victim and aggressor.

I never said victims have power. Just that victimhood is encouraged from a young age.

It used to be normal for kids to fight and for parents to teach them to always fight back, stand up for others, do not let injustice stand, etc. Oh and do not tell on others, nobody likes a rat. Now the message is to not fight or you might get hurt, tell an adult to resolve conflicts, everything you do might have consequences later so be careful about what you do or say. There are schools where if two kids fight, both get suspended. You're literally not allowed to defend yourself. I've seen a video of a girl getting beaten in the head while she was lying on her desk, waiting for it to be over.

And you're right, victims have no power to influence those in positions of power. But victimhood is used as a weapon against those on the same level of power by making the "authorities" punish them for victimizing you.

It works on multiple levels of severity.

Online, if you're in a place which forbids swearing, you provoke others into swearing at you and they get punished - you used mods against them. At school, you make yourself cry and go tell the teacher what supposedly happened - you used the teachers against them. At work, you do pretty much the same thing, minus crying if you're a man. Using the legal system in this way is harder because unlike the previous places, it requires a certain level of proof which is harder to fabricate but false accusations do happen, not with the intent to be prosecuted but as a method of slander through a third party. Look how many men are afraid to make the first move because of the low-probability high-severity event that the woman sees it as harassment.